Study: 82908

Publication

Review Details

Reviewed: January 2024

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Publication (findings for Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Findings

Phonics and Related Alphabetics outcomes—Uncertain effects found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack Subtest	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	107.07	104.72	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack Subtest	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	109.39	108.20	No	--
Graphophonemic Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	34.00	33.04	No	--
Word Spelling	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	43.78	43.46	No	--
Spelling Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	45.35	45.14	No	--
Graphophonemic Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	20.96	20.99	No	--
Spelling Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	24.89	25.08	No	--

Reading Fluency outcomes—Uncertain effects found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification Subtest	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	106.12	104.57	No	--
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency Subtest	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	97.23	97.08	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Decodable Word Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	33.87	28.52	No	--
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification Subtest	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	109.02	106.54	No	--
Passage Reading Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	94.46	87.39	No	--
Passage Reading Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	38.32	34.63	No	--
Word Identification Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 123 students	25.80	23.47	No	--
Word Identification Fluency	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	62.84	59.60	No	--
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency Subtest	Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	100.04	98.35	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Female: 46%
Male: 54%
Suburban, Urban
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Northeast

Race
Black		11%
Other or unknown		9%
Two or more races		9%
White		71%

Ethnicity
Other or unknown		100%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Other or unknown		100%

Study Details

Setting

The study included two cohorts of grade 1 students from parochial schools in a major mid-Atlantic city and nearby suburban communities.

Study sample

The study randomized 124 students at the beginning of grade 1. The analytic sample for grade 1, which was measured in spring of the school year, included 61 intervention and 62 comparison students. The grade 2 analytic sample included 54 students in the intervention group and 55 students in the comparison group. Fifty-four percent of students were male, 71 percent were White, 11 percent were Black, 9 percent were multiracial, and 9 percent were of another or unknown race. Across both years, the study included 25 teachers who volunteered to participate in the study.

Intervention Group

The Tier 2 reading intervention integrated the skills needed by struggling readers and recommended by the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000), including phonemic awareness, word attack skills, spelling, sight word recognition, vocabulary, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. Specifically, 25 scripted lessons were developed by adapting published reading programs and evidence-based instructional methods. Tutors were instructed to follow the scripted lessons closely and to modify activities slightly to accommodate learners’ needs. The intervention occurred from January through March with three 40-minute sessions scheduled weekly, for approximately 12 weeks. Group size varied from two to four students per group; there were 22 groups in total. There were seven groups of two students, 13 groups of three students, and two groups of four students. Students in the intervention group also received Tier 1 reading instruction, which included Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual Tier 1 instruction, which included Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS).

Support for implementation

All participating teachers in the intervention and comparison conditions received Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) training. Each year, between September and November, teachers participated in a day-long professional development session to acquire, review, and practice the PALS components required for effective classroom implementation. Project staff observed teachers twice per year and obtained fidelity information to document PALS implementation. Observers used a standardized protocol based on the protocol designed by PALS developers to document implementation. Project staff met briefly with teachers or provided written feedback.

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: February 2023

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

Oral reading fluency outcomes—Substantively important positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Passage Reading Fluency - Grade 1 Level	Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL)	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	90.21	82.12	No	--
Passage Reading Fluency - Grade 2 Level	Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL)	1 Year	Full sample; 109 students	94.46	87.39	No	--

Word reading outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack	Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL)	Full sample; 123 students	107.07	104.72	No	--
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification	Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL)	Full sample; 123 students	105.93	104.57	No	--
TOWRE - Phonemic Decoding Fluency	Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL)	Full sample; 123 students	96.59	97.08	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Suburban, Urban

Study Details

Setting

The study participants were first-grade students from parochial schools in a major mid-Atlantic city and nearby suburban communities.

Study sample

The school enrollment ranged from 166 to 715 students (Median = 483 students) in the participating schools. The median percentage of children eligible for free and reduced-priced meals at the school level was 5% (range = 0–75%). In the analysis sample, 54.1% were boys in the intervention group (54% in the comparison group); 14.8% were black in the intervention group (8.1% in the comparison group); 39.9% of the intervention students' mothers had a high school degree, (45.2% in the comparison group).

Intervention Group

The intervention period occurred from January through March. The intervention consisted of three 40-min sessions scheduled weekly, for approximately 12 weeks. The intervention was administered in groups and group size varied from two to four students per group. There were 22 groups in total and there were seven groups of two students, 13 groups of three students, and two groups of four students. The intervention used methods recommended by the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Twenty five scripted lessons were developed from other reading programs and evidence-based instructional methods. Tutors followed the scripted lessons closely but were allowed to modify lessons slightly, when necessary, when students were struggling. Each lesson included three main components. First, there was 15 minutes of instruction on "building phonemic awareness and phonic skills through the introduction and reinforcement of letter-sound relationships." Then tutors provided 10 minutes of instruction "focusing on sight works, decodable works, vocabulary, and prereading comprehension strategies." Finally, in the last 15 minutes, students "participated in reading fluency and comprehension activities with timed reading, repeated choral reading, and discussion to build comprehension." Every fourth lesson the format changed where "instead of participating in choral and timed reading, students listened to one student read a decodable or leveled trade book and then the group read the text chorally."

Comparison Group

Students from the comparison group received Tier 1 instruction, which consisted of Peer Assisted Learning Strategies three times a week between November and April during first grade.

Support for implementation

Intervention tutors participated in a minimum of 20 hours of training. All participating teachers were provided with Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) training. Project staff observed teachers twice per year and obtained fidelity information to document PALS implementation. The authors also established treatment fidelity in several ways.

Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Tier 2 Reading Instruction for First-Grade Students with a High Probability of Reading Failure

Publication

Review Details

Findings

Sample Characteristics

Study Details

Setting

Study sample

Intervention Group

Comparison Group

Support for implementation

Practice Guide

Review Details

Findings

Sample Characteristics

Study Details

Setting

Study sample

Intervention Group

Comparison Group

Support for implementation